scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

N Deltour

Bio: N Deltour is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Absolute risk reduction & Population. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 4 publications receiving 11 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In patients without contraindications for SR, this work found no evidence of an increased risk of AMI but a 25–30% excess risk of VTE and a 35% extra risk of CVDeath with current vs past SR users, despite a reduction in risk in CVDeath in current vs current BP users.
Abstract: Strontium ranelate use, compared with oral bisphosphonates, is not associated with increased risk of AMI in patients with no contraindications for SR use. However, current strontium ranelate (compared with current bisphosphonate) appears associated with 25–30% excess risk of VTE and 35% excess risk of CVDeath. Evaluate the risk of cardiac and thromboembolic events among new users of SR and oral BPs without contraindications for SR. We conducted three multi-national, multi-database (Aarhus-Denmark, HSD-Italy, IPCI-Netherlands, SIDIAP-Spain, THIN-UK) case-control studies nested within a cohort of new users of SR/BP. We matched cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and cardiovascular death (CVDeath), up to 10 controls on gender, year of birth, index date, and country. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to current SR vs current BP use and current vs past SR use, adjusting for potential confounders. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. No excess risk of AMI (5477 cases/54,674 controls) was found with current SR vs current BP (OR 0.89 (95%CI 0.70, 1.12)) nor with current vs past SR use (0.71(0.56, 0.91)). For VTE (5614 cases/6036 controls), an excess risk was found with current SR compared with current BP use, 1.24 (0.96, 1.61), and current vs past SR use, 1.30 (1.04, 1.62). For CVDeath (3019 cases/29,871 controls), an increased risk was seen with current SR vs current BP use, 1.35 (1.02, 1.80), but not with current vs past SR use (0.68 (0.48, 0.96)). In patients without contraindications for SR, we found no evidence of an increased risk of AMI but a 25–30% excess risk of VTE and a 35% excess risk of CVDeath with current SR vs current BP users. This is despite a reduction in risk in CVDeath with current vs past SR users. The latter disparity could still be partially explained by cessation of preventative therapies in end-of-life or residual confounding by indication.

10 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A substantial impact of the regulatory action to restrict use of SR in Europe is demonstrated: SR utilisation overall decreased strongly and the proportion of patients fulfilling the restricted indications, without contraindications, increased after the proposed RMMs.
Abstract: In May 2013 and March 2014, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued two decisions restricting the use of strontium ranelate (SR). These risk minimisation measures (RMM) introduced new contraindications and limited the indications of SR therapy. The EMA required an assessment of the impact of RMMs on the use of SR in Europe. Methods design: multi-national, multi-database cohort Setting: electronic medical record databases based on hospital (Denmark) and primary care provenance (Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, UK). Participants: the database source populations were included for population-based analyses, and SR users for patient-level analyses. Intervention: New RMMs included contraindications (ischaemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, cerebrovascular disease, uncontrolled hypertension) and restricted SR indication to severe osteoporosis with initiation by experienced physician and not as first line anti-osteoporosis therapy. Prevalence and incidence rates of SR use in the population; prevalence of contraindications and restricted indications in SR users, plus 1-year therapy persistence. Drug use measures were calculated in three periods for comparison: reference (2004 to May 2013), transition (June 2013 to March 2014) and assessment (from April 2014 to end 2016). The study population included 143 million person-years(PY) of follow-up and 76,141 incident episodes of SR treatment. Average monthly prevalence rates of SR use dropped by 86.4% from 62.6/10,000 PY (95 CI 62.4–62.9) in the reference to 8.5 (8.5–8.6) in the assessment period. Similarly, the incidence rate of SR use fell by 97.3% from 7.4/10,000 PY (7.4–7.4) to 0.2 (0.2–0.2) between the reference and assessment period. The prevalence of any contraindication decreased, whilst the prevalence of restricted indications increased in these periods. One-year persistence decreased in the assessment compared with reference period. Our study demonstrates a substantial impact of the regulatory action to restrict use of SR in Europe: SR utilisation overall decreased strongly. The proportion of patients fulfilling the restricted indications, without contraindications, increased after the proposed RMMs.

9 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The molecular mechanisms of osteoporosis, current drugs for osteop orosis treatment, and new drug development strategies are summarized to provide an alternative approach.
Abstract: CDATA[Osteoporosis is a pathological loss of bone mass due to an imbalance in bone remodeling where osteoclast-mediated bone resorption exceeds osteoblast-mediated bone formation resulting in skeletal fragility and fractures. Anti-resorptive agents, such as bisphosphonates and SERMs, and anabolic drugs that stimulate bone formation, including PTH analogues and sclerostin inhibitors, are current treatments for osteoporosis. Despite their efficacy, severe side effects and loss of potency may limit the long term usage of a single drug. Sequential and combinational use of current drugs, such as switching from an anabolic to an anti-resorptive agent, may provide an alternative approach. Moreover, there are novel drugs being developed against emerging new targets such as Cathepsin K and 17β-HSD2 that may have less side effects. This review will summarize the molecular mechanisms of osteoporosis, current drugs for osteoporosis treatment, and new drug development strategies.

69 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the competitive effect of osteogenic activity and apatite-forming ability on bone-implant osseointegration was analyzed in the form of Strontium surface incorporated in titanium (Ti) implant with different contents.

13 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The data does not support an increased risk of VTE associated with strontium ranelate use in the community, and the risk with other bisphosphonates or denosumab did not differ versus alendronate.
Abstract: The venous thromboembolism risk among anti-osteoporotics is unknown. In this primary care study, the risk with other bisphosphonates [1.05 (0.94–1.18) and 0.96 (0.78–1.18)], strontium [0.90 (0.61–1.34) and 1.19 (0.82–1.74)], in the UK and Spain respectively, and denosumab [1.77 (0.25–12.66)] and teriparatide [1.27 (0.59–2.71)] in Spain, did not differ versus alendronate. Most of the known adverse drug reactions described for anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) have been described in studies comparing AOM users to non-users. We aimed to compare the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among incident users of different AOM compared to alendronate (first line therapy). Two cohort studies were performed using data from the UK (CPRD) and Spain (BIFAP) primary care records separately. All patients aged ≥ 50 years with at least 1 year of data available and a new prescription or dispensation of AOM (date for therapy initiation) during 2000–2014 (CPRD) or 2001–2013 (BIFAP) were included. Users of raloxifene/bazedoxifene were excluded from both databases. Five exposure cohorts were identified according to first treatment: (1) alendronate, (2) other bisphosphonates, (3) strontium ranelate, (4) denosumab, and (5) teriparatide. Participants were followed from the day after therapy initiation to the earliest of a treated VTE (cases), end of AOM treatment (defined by a refill gap of 180 days), switching to an alternative AOM, drop-out, death, or end of study period. Incidence rates of VTE were estimated by cohort. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR 95%CI) were estimated according to drug used. Overall, 2035/159,209 (1.28%) in CPRD and 401/83,334 (0.48%) in BIFAP had VTE. Compared to alendronate, adjusted HR of VTE were 1.05 (0.94–1.18) and 0.96 (0.78–1.18) for other bisphosphonates, and 0.90 (0.61–1.34) and 1.19 (0.82–1.74) for strontium in CPRD and BIFAP, respectively; 1.77 (0.25–12.66) for denosumab and 1.27 (0.59–2.71) for teriparatide in BIFAP. VTE risk during AO therapy did not differ by AOM drug use. Our data does not support an increased risk of VTE associated with strontium ranelate use in the community.

13 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The GP forms the point of care and acts as a gatekeeper to accessing secondary care as mentioned in this paper , and the GP records include demographic information, patient complaints and symptoms, diagnoses, laboratory test results, lifestyle factors and correspondence with secondary care, such as referral and discharge letters.
Abstract: Accessibility of health care is very good in The Netherlands. More than 99% of the population has health insurance and almost all citizens are registered with a general practitioner (GP). People are free to choose their GP. Enrolment at a general practice can be rejected because of capacity limitations or too great a distance between the practice and the patient’s address. The GP forms the point of care and acts as a gatekeeper to accessing secondary care. Over 12 months, around 78% of the population has at least one contact with their GP. Patient data in the GP records include demographic information, patient’s complaints and symptoms, diagnoses, laboratory test results, lifestyle factors and correspondence with secondary care, such as referral and discharge letters.

13 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the relative roles of calcium, magnesium and strontium in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health and disease are discussed. But, despite these three elements being closely chemically related, there is marked heterogeneity of their characteristics in relation to cardiovascular outcomes.
Abstract: Calcium, magnesium and strontium have all been implicated in both musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health and disease. However, despite these three elements being closely chemically related, there is marked heterogeneity of their characteristics in relation to cardiovascular outcomes. In this narrative review, we describe the relevant evidential landscape, focusing on clinical trials where possible and incorporating findings from observational and causal analyses, to discern the relative roles of these elements in musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health. We conclude that calcium supplementation (for bone health) is most appropriately used in combination with vitamin D supplementation and targeted to those who are deficient in these nutrients, or in combination with antiosteoporosis medications. Whilst calcium supplementation is associated with gastrointestinal side effects and a small increased risk of renal stones, purported links with cardiovascular outcomes remain unconvincing. In normal physiology, no mechanism for an association has been elucidated and other considerations such as dose response and temporal relationships do not support a causal relationship. There is little evidence to support routine magnesium supplementation for musculoskeletal outcomes; greater dietary intake and serum concentrations appear protective against cardiovascular events. Strontium ranelate, which is now available again as a generic medication, has clear anti-fracture efficacy but is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic disease. Whilst a signal for increased risk of myocardial infarction has been detected in some studies, this is not supported by wider analyses. Strontium ranelate, under its current licence, thus provides a useful therapeutic option for severe osteoporosis in those who do not have cardiovascular risk factors.

12 citations